Search

Objective Routine screening for cardiovascular disease before kidney transplantation remains controversial. This study aims to compare cardiac testing rates in patients with end-stage renal disease, referred and not referred for transplantation, and assess the impact of testing on transplant wait times.Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of 22 687 end-stage renal disease patients from 2011 to 2022, within an integrated health system. Cardiac testing patterns, and the association between cardiac testing and transplant wait times and post-transplant mortality were evaluated.Results Of 22 687 patients (median age 66 years, 41.1% female), 6.9% received kidney transplants, and 21.0% underwent evaluation. Compared with dialysis patients, transplant patients had a 5.6 times higher rate of stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging with single-photon emission (rate ratio (RR) 5.64, 95% CI 5.37 to 5.92), a 6.5 times higher rate of stress echocardiogram (RR 6.51, 95% CI 5.65 to 7.51) and 16% higher cardiac catheterisation (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27). In contrast, revascularisation rates were significantly lower in transplant patients (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.58). Transplant wait times were longer for patients who underwent stress testing (median 474 days with no testing vs 1053 days with testing) and revascularisation (1796 days for percutaneous intervention and 2164 days for coronary artery bypass surgery). No significant association was observed with 1-year post-transplant mortality (adjusted OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.56).Conclusions This study found a higher rate of cardiac testing in dialysis patients evaluated for kidney transplants. Cardiac testing was associated with longer transplant wait time, but no association was observed between testing and post-transplant mortality.

Objective: Studies have shown that both home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) and center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) exhibit comparable efficacy in reducing mortality during short-term follow-up periods of up to 12 months. However, research on sex- and race-specific outcomes associated with HBCR is limited. This study examines all-cause mortality and hospital readmission among patients referred to HBCR, with stratification by sex and race. Methods: This Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) retrospective cohort study followed 6,868 patients from HBCR referral until death, disenrollment, or December 31, 2021. There were 3,835 HBCR graduates, 722 non-graduates, and 2,311 non-enrolled patients. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) comparing 1) HBCR graduates vs. non-enrolled, and 2) HBCR graduates vs. non-graduates, stratified by sex and race. Differential outcomes among strata were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: Among the 6,868 patients referred to HBCR, 4693 (68.3 %) were male, 2,175 (31.7 %) female, 870 (12.7 %) Asian/Pacific Islander, 731 (10.6 %) African American, 1,612 (23.6 %) Hispanic/Latino, and 3,646 non-Hispanic White (53.1 %). Over a mean follow-up period of 2.28 years, HBCR graduates, compared to patients who did not enroll in HBCR, had overall significantly lower risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization. These results remained significant with stratification by sex and race. Compared to HBCR non-graduates, HBCR graduates overall had significantly lower risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization. In the same comparison, mortality risk was significantly reduced for male and White patients; risk of hospital readmission was significantly reduced in both sexes, African American, and White patients. Among HBCR graduates, no significant differences in all-cause mortality or hospital readmission were observed across sexes and races. Conclusion: HBCR participation is associated with reduction of all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates across sexes and races. Notably, we observed benefits at varying levels of engagement, which suggests that even partial completion of HBCR is associated with risk reduction. Among HBCR graduates, we found similar outcomes across sexes and races, which suggests that the program can be effective among diverse patient groups.